IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, affirming the principle that an interested witness's testimony requires corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) :

1. Appellants have assailed judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Darjeeling in connection with Sessions Case No.05 of 2018 (Sessions Trial No.3(7) of 2018) convicting the appellant No.1 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/449 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 323/34 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing appellant No.1 to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing appellant Nos.2 and 3 to suffer simple imprisonment for six months on each count i.e. for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. All the sentences to run concurrently.

Prosecution case:-

2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that wife of appellant no. 1 Smt. Panchu Rai (PW 5) had eloped with the deceased Binoy Rai in 2017. In January 2018 they returned to the village. Hearing the news on 28.1.2018, appellant no. 1, his mother Phulmaya Tamang (appellant no. 2) and his brothers Birgate Tamang (child in conflict with law) and Dipen Tamang (appellant no. 3) illegally trespassed into the house and assaulted Binoy and Panchu Tamang. Appellant no. 1 assaulted Binoy with a big stone on his head. As a result, Binoy died. Puran Rai, brother of Binoy lodged written complaint at the police station against the appellants resulting in registration of Jorebunglow P.S case no. 8 of 2018 dated 29.1.2018 under sections 448/449/302/34 IPC. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and appellants were put on trial. Birgate Tamang being a juvenile was tried before the Juvenile Board. During trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.

3. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

Arguments at the Bar:-

4. Mr. Ganguly for the appellants contends FIR is ante-timed. FIR maker (PW1) was in a marriage ceremony. He was unaware of the manner and circumstances in which his brother Binoy had been murdered. He lodged FIR after interacting with Panchu (PW5), the eye-witness in the morning. The sole eye-witness Panchu had inimical relationship with the appellant. She was the wife of appellant no. 1 and had eloped with the deceased in 2017. Her sole testimony against the appellants ought to be taken with a pinch of salt and cannot be the sole basis of conviction. Accordingly, he prays for acquittal.

5. On the other hand Mr. Roy submits Panchu Rai (PW 5) was present at the place of occurrence with the deceased on the fateful night. She witnessed the incident and fled away. Her deposition is corroborated by PW4, sister-in-law of the deceased and medical evidence. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Evidence on record:-

6. PW1 is the brother of the deceased and de facto complainant. He is a reported witness. He deposed he was at a marriage ceremony and heard the incident from his wife, PW4. He went to the place of occurrence and found his brother died. He lodged written complaint which was scribed by PW3.

7. PW 4 is the wife of PW 1. She deposed on the day of occurrence she had gone to attend the wedding ceremony at the house of one Agam Rai (PW 6). She returned home to serve dinner to her father-in-law. On returning home she found appellants assaulting Panchu Rai (PW 5). She also saw the dead body of Binay Rai. She rushed back to the wedding ceremony and informed her hu